Not sure what point you're trying to make there; para EQ's were available, or he demonstrably would not have been able to install one on his guitar. As far as this discussion goes, the equipment available now is the equipment available then...any EQ will do, doesn't have to be a TC piece. My fundamental point isn't really controversial: you could get the same result by an EQ further down the signal chain, as there is no inherent benefit in installing an eq in your guitar comapred to having it elsewhere prior to amplification.

I think there is a benefit if you use a para EQ the way Frank did to enhance feedback or a particular frequencey that would resonate with the room. As you know a room can change depending on the amount of people and humidity in the air. What you dial in in sound check no longer goes after a crown gets in. I have a compressor mounted on board in one of my tele's and I can tell you there is a difference between it and the pedal version I have mounted in a box. Whether it is the fact that its an inch away from the pickups or some other mojo I dont know, but besides the convenience factor there may be sound benefits as well such as creating a buffer before it hits a fuzz box or some such contraption. Besides that it looks lame to keep turning around (or bending over) to mess with your gear IMO.

_________________Music > EverythingCLETUS must now, regretfully, dispose of the ones who refuse to alter their unmusical ways.http://www.vulturesawait.com

I think there is a benefit if you use a para EQ the way Frank did to enhance feedback or a particular frequencey that would resonate with the room. As you know a room can change depending on the amount of people and humidity in the air. What you dial in in sound check no longer goes after a crown gets in. I have a compressor mounted on board in one of my tele's and I can tell you there is a difference between it and the pedal version I have mounted in a box. Whether it is the fact that its an inch away from the pickups or some other mojo I dont know, but besides the convenience factor there may be sound benefits as well such as creating a buffer before it hits a fuzz box or some such contraption. Besides that it looks lame to keep turning around (or bending over) to mess with your gear IMO.

Rooms acoustic properties vary: thats a given. Also, I think its great Frank ised a para EQ to nail a tone that he was happy with, particularly with respect to getting notes to bloom quicker and feedback easily: he was an exceptional sonic manipulator, and used a wah pedal in much the same way long before he had onboard Eq's....you can often hear him using a wah in a static position to find a biting tone that would sustain and bloom, rather than the usual "heel/toe" style. Its not in dispute that there is a benefit to enhance feedback as you say......but thats not my point....

......again....it doesn't matter whether the EQ is fitted on the guitar or in a rack or a pedal or wherever. The only difference is where is lies in the signal chain, which makes no difference if its before the time it hits the PA if you're only looking for a sweet-spot. Think about it: you're only emphasising a particular frequency to make the timbral quality of the guitar signal feedback after it leaves the amp: it doesn't matter if its in the guitar or a pedal/wherever.

Re your compressor: thats a much different beast than Eq'ing: esp if you're compressing a signal prior to mod and delay effects being added, but thats another story. There's also plenty of other variables that can affect variations between onbaord effects and pedal/rack effects, like signal length, quality of wiring, shielding, components used etc etc.

Convenience factor: weeeeeeellll.....I'mn not sold on that either: from what I read it was a screwdriver adjustment, so it could be set during soundcheck and then left alone....maybe the screwdriver was so it wouldn't get bumped accidentally?.....either way, it doesn't support an argument that having it on the guitar means adjustments can be made easily on the fly. Adjusting gear occasionally is part of the game, every gigging muso with electric equipment deals with it: it doesn't take that long to push some EQ where you need it (or where you don't as the case may be).

Putting an eq before a distortion pedal or any effect, especially an analog circuit will have a huge impact on the way the circuit will process the sound. you will not be able to reproduce this by putting the same eq at the end of the signal chain. Having a simple parametric eq onboard gives many benefits you probably havent thought of like the ability to dial this in from in front of the stage...etc. I have mounted a parametric eq in one of my guitars and experimented with this. It works great but I have yet to try it out in anything better than a 1000 capacity club so as far as dialing in feedback it's hardly an issue, feedback is easy in a small club. I have mine with a control knob so I can make adjustments easily but it's so close to a wah circuit that I end up using the pedal instead, which also has it's own set of drawbacks.

_________________Music > EverythingCLETUS must now, regretfully, dispose of the ones who refuse to alter their unmusical ways.http://www.vulturesawait.com

Last edited by Cletus on Mon Jul 25, 2011 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"Putting an eq before a distortion pedal or any effect, especially an analog circuit will have a huge impact on the way the circuit will process the sound. you will not be able to reproduce this by putting the same eq at the end of the signal chain."

....help me rhonda....you can still run the para eq before any effects/od's/distortions etc etc in the signal chain. It simply doesn't matter whether the eq is mounted in the guitar or not. Noone said anything about running eq at the end of the signal chain.

"Having a simple parametric eq onboard gives many benefits you probably havent thought of like the ability to dial this in from in front of the stage..." Whats the benefit (let alone benefits)?....you're not making sense. Its not rocket science.....sufficient volume = vibration = feedback. It's not hard in any size club, be it from your miked speaker cab or the monitors. You don't need to "dial it in from the front of the stage". This is playing live 101 btw, and not controversial amongst any practicing muso....I dunno how I got caught up in this. You can't be suggesting that the only benefit is that you don't have to bend down to adjust a pedal, or even worse, have to walk 10' back to the pedal then adjust it? Next we'll be leaving spare strings at convenient locations on stage lest one breaks.

Not sure what point you're trying to make there; para EQ's were available, or he demonstrably would not have been able to install one on his guitar. As far as this discussion goes, the equipment available now is the equipment available then...any EQ will do, doesn't have to be a TC piece. My fundamental point isn't really controversial: you could get the same result by an EQ further down the signal chain, as there is no inherent benefit in installing an eq in your guitar comapred to having it elsewhere prior to amplification.

here is where you say you get the same result by an EQ further down the signal chain. Further down the signal chain would mean there is something between it and the guitar. I agree with you on one thing, you dont know how you got caught up in this.

_________________Music > EverythingCLETUS must now, regretfully, dispose of the ones who refuse to alter their unmusical ways.http://www.vulturesawait.com

Not sure why eq placement is so controversial, but I'll throw in 2 cents. Of course placement in the signal chain matters. FZ's rig had a fair amount of switching opportunities. Since the eq was important to FZ's sound, I'm guessing that it was easier to keep it on-hand at the guitar level, so that as one switches pathways, the eq stays in-line.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To

It's thus suggested that FZ's guitar-work sound was moreabout effects he used, rather than any modificationsmade to his guitars?

Not necessarily. Modifications can be effects . They can also change your way of playing.Still, his guitar sound had as much to do with the way he played, physically, as anything else. The thing is, effects or any other guitar modifications would shape the way he played so it works both ways.

His raw guitar-work was certainly edited and modifiedbefore being officially released.

.

no shit

The first Zappa I heard was OS and Bongo Fury. Right in a row. When I heard Carolina Hardcore Ecstasy, the way he comes roaring out of the gate on the solo, those first lines, majorly impressed me. It's still one of my favorite moments. But.....later, after hearing bootlegs of other versions of the song from the same '75 tour, I realized he had edited that solo for BF and he didn't actually rip right into those first couple of guitar lines like that. Turned out that Zappa was not quite as incredible as I thought he was (but he's still incredible). And his editing was right on.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum